DiscussMormonism.com

zerinus wrote:

Philo Sofee wrote:He demonstrates perfectly why apologetics will never be scholarship....

Of course apologetics is not scholarship, nor is it supposed to be. Apologetics is the art of defending one's faith against criticisms by unbelievers, and it makes use of various disciplines including scholarship to accomplish that. Its primary objective is to point out the flaws in the critic's argument, and thus to neutralize their criticisms. Its purpose is not to "do scholarship," but to prove the critic wrong.

EAllusion wrote:The purpose of apologetics is to demonstrate that faith in the religion the apologetics is for is rational or persuasive. Reducing apologetics into refutation of critics is a retreat that slights what apologetics aims for.

Zerinus wrote:Apologetics wouldn't exist if the criticism of the critics never existed. Apologetics literally means a defense. There would be no need for a defense if there was never an attack. If the objective is simply to persuade people to believe and accept your religion on a rational basis, there is another name for that, it is called expository teaching or preaching. But when you call it apologetics, you are presupposing some kind of criticism or attack against which you are offering a rational justification or a defense. The two concepts may be closely related, but they are not the same.

627 /apología ("reasoned defense") is the term for making a legal defense in an ancient court. Today 627 /apología ("biblical apologetics") is used for supplying evidences for the Christian faith.

Gadianton wrote:
In practice, however, there doesn't seem to be a real framework for studying the non-natural, and so apologetics does seem to simply engage in bad science.

MG wrote:In many cases, that is probably true. But you do have folks such as Steven Peck that engage in 'good' science as they practice their faith.

Lemmie wrote:Does Steven Peck do apologetics?

mentalgymnast wrote:

Gadianton wrote:
In practice, however, there doesn't seem to be a real framework for studying the non-natural, and so apologetics does seem to simply engage in bad science.

MG wrote:In many cases, that is probably true. But you do have folks such as Steven Peck that engage in 'good' science as they practice their faith.

Lemmie wrote:Does Steven Peck do apologetics?

I would consider him an apologist.

Here is a podcast that might help you determine whether or not you think he is.

http://www.ldsperspectives.com/2017/08/ ... rodactyls/

Regards,
MG

Gadianton wrote:Well that reference sure came from nowhere MG. You missed the context (surprising as that may be). The context was specifically those who assume the church is true and work backwards to justify it and claim something along the lines that their assumption of the Church is just as valid as an assumption of naturalism. At first blush, whatever issues this Peck guy might have, it doesn't seem this is his problem. It looks more like he's a wild theological speculator. Totally different animal than an apologist.

Lemmie wrote:I think you missed the point of my post. Did you see Gadianton's post, right after mine?

In practice, however, there doesn't seem to be a real framework for studying the non-natural, and so apologetics does seem to simply engage in bad science.

mentalgymnast wrote:

Lemmie wrote:I think you missed the point of my post. Did you see Gadianton's post, right after mine?

Earlier in the thread Gadianton said:

In practice, however, there doesn't seem to be a real framework for studying the non-natural, and so apologetics does seem to simply engage in bad science.

I'm simply pointing out that here we have a fellow that may not fit that mould....

Gadianton wrote:MG,

You literally torque-wrenched that quote from me out of context. Did you read the first paragraph and did you understand it? (no, and no, of course).

"Apologetics does seem to simply engage in bad science (in this context, meaning apologetics as defined by some prominent apologists as assuming the church is true and working backwards to support it. Nearly by definition, using standard tools of science, this would be bad science)".

So what does the link to Peck say about that? Is your argument that Peck doesn't work backwards yet he's still an apologist? Is your argument that he does work backward yet this is still good science? What is your point, MG?

... when you call it apologetics, you are presupposing some kind of criticism or attack against which you are offering a rational justification or a defense.